Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Sage Weil]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, Loic Dachary wrote:
> On 23/03/2016 01:12, Chris Dunlop wrote:
> > Hi Loïc,
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:03:06AM +0100, Loic Dachary wrote:
> >> On 23/03/2016 00:39, Chris Dunlop wrote:
> >>> "The old OS'es" that were being supported up to v0.94.5 includes debian
> >>> wheezy. It would be quite surprising and unexpected to drop support for an
> >>> OS in the middle of a stable series.
> >>
> >> I'm unsure if wheezy is among the old OS'es. It predates my involvement in 
> >> the stable releases effort. I know for sure el6 and 12.04 are supported 
> >> for 0.94.x. 
> > 
> >>From http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/pool/main/c/ceph/
> > 
> > ceph-common_0.94.1-1~bpo70+1_i386.deb  15-Dec-2015 15:32
> > 10217628
> > ceph-common_0.94.3-1~bpo70+1_amd64.deb 19-Oct-2015 18:54
> >  9818964
> > ceph-common_0.94.4-1~bpo70+1_amd64.deb 26-Oct-2015 20:48
> >  9868020
> > ceph-common_0.94.5-1~bpo70+1_amd64.deb 15-Dec-2015 15:32
> >  9868188
> > 
> > That's all debian wheezy.
> > 
> > (Huh. I'd never noticed 0.94.1 was i386 only!)
> > 
> 
> Indeed. Were these packages created as a lucky side effect or because 
> there was a commitment at some point ? I'm curious to know the answer as 
> well :-)

Wheezy was part of the official supported list for hammer (and still 
should be).  I think this was just an oversight for the last hammer 
release, unless there is some infrastructure issues I haven't heard about.
There will be another hammer release before too long.

sage___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Chris Dunlop]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:22:45AM +0100, Loic Dachary wrote:
> On 23/03/2016 01:12, Chris Dunlop wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:03:06AM +0100, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>> On 23/03/2016 00:39, Chris Dunlop wrote:
 "The old OS'es" that were being supported up to v0.94.5 includes debian
 wheezy. It would be quite surprising and unexpected to drop support for an
 OS in the middle of a stable series.
>>>
>>> I'm unsure if wheezy is among the old OS'es. It predates my involvement in 
>>> the stable releases effort. I know for sure el6 and 12.04 are supported for 
>>> 0.94.x. 
>> 
>> From http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/pool/main/c/ceph/
>> 
>> ceph-common_0.94.1-1~bpo70+1_i386.deb  15-Dec-2015 15:32 
>>10217628
>> ceph-common_0.94.3-1~bpo70+1_amd64.deb 19-Oct-2015 18:54 
>> 9818964
>> ceph-common_0.94.4-1~bpo70+1_amd64.deb 26-Oct-2015 20:48 
>> 9868020
>> ceph-common_0.94.5-1~bpo70+1_amd64.deb 15-Dec-2015 15:32 
>> 9868188
>> 
>> That's all debian wheezy.
>> 
>> (Huh. I'd never noticed 0.94.1 was i386 only!)
>> 
> 
> Indeed. Were these packages created as a lucky side effect or because there 
> was a commitment at some point ? I'm curious to know the answer as well :-)

Who would know?  Sage?  (cc'ed)

Chris
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Loic Dachary]

On 23/03/2016 01:12, Chris Dunlop wrote:
> Hi Loïc,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:03:06AM +0100, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> On 23/03/2016 00:39, Chris Dunlop wrote:
>>> "The old OS'es" that were being supported up to v0.94.5 includes debian
>>> wheezy. It would be quite surprising and unexpected to drop support for an
>>> OS in the middle of a stable series.
>>
>> I'm unsure if wheezy is among the old OS'es. It predates my involvement in 
>> the stable releases effort. I know for sure el6 and 12.04 are supported for 
>> 0.94.x. 
> 
>>From http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/pool/main/c/ceph/
> 
> ceph-common_0.94.1-1~bpo70+1_i386.deb  15-Dec-2015 15:32  
>   10217628
> ceph-common_0.94.3-1~bpo70+1_amd64.deb 19-Oct-2015 18:54  
>9818964
> ceph-common_0.94.4-1~bpo70+1_amd64.deb 26-Oct-2015 20:48  
>9868020
> ceph-common_0.94.5-1~bpo70+1_amd64.deb 15-Dec-2015 15:32  
>9868188
> 
> That's all debian wheezy.
> 
> (Huh. I'd never noticed 0.94.1 was i386 only!)
> 

Indeed. Were these packages created as a lucky side effect or because there was 
a commitment at some point ? I'm curious to know the answer as well :-)

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Chris Dunlop]

Hi Loïc,

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:03:06AM +0100, Loic Dachary wrote:
> On 23/03/2016 00:39, Chris Dunlop wrote:
>> "The old OS'es" that were being supported up to v0.94.5 includes debian
>> wheezy. It would be quite surprising and unexpected to drop support for an
>> OS in the middle of a stable series.
> 
> I'm unsure if wheezy is among the old OS'es. It predates my involvement in 
> the stable releases effort. I know for sure el6 and 12.04 are supported for 
> 0.94.x. 

From http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/pool/main/c/ceph/

ceph-common_0.94.1-1~bpo70+1_i386.deb  15-Dec-2015 15:32
10217628
ceph-common_0.94.3-1~bpo70+1_amd64.deb 19-Oct-2015 18:54
 9818964
ceph-common_0.94.4-1~bpo70+1_amd64.deb 26-Oct-2015 20:48
 9868020
ceph-common_0.94.5-1~bpo70+1_amd64.deb 15-Dec-2015 15:32
 9868188

That's all debian wheezy.

(Huh. I'd never noticed 0.94.1 was i386 only!)

Cheers,

Chris,
OnTheNet
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Loic Dachary]

Hi Chris,

On 23/03/2016 00:39, Chris Dunlop wrote:
> Hi Loïc,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:14:27AM +0100, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> On 22/03/2016 23:49, Chris Dunlop wrote:
>>> Hi Stable Release Team for v0.94,
>>>
>>> Let's try again... Any news on a release of v0.94.6 for debian wheezy 
>>> (bpo70)?
>>
>> I don't think publishing a debian wheezy backport for v0.94.6 is planned. 
>> Maybe it's a good opportunity to initiate a community effort ? Would you 
>> like to work with me on this ?
> 
> It's my understanding, from statements by both Sage and yourself, that
> existing OS'es would continue to be supported in the stable series, e.g.:
> 
>  On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 06:32:18PM +0700, Loic Dachary wrote:
>  > I think you misread what Sage wrote : "The intention was to continue
>  > building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old list of supported platforms
>  > (which inclues 12.04 and el6)". In other words, the old OS'es are still
>  > supported. Their absence is a glitch in the release process that will be
>  > fixed.
> 
> "The old OS'es" that were being supported up to v0.94.5 includes debian
> wheezy. It would be quite surprising and unexpected to drop support for an
> OS in the middle of a stable series.

I'm unsure if wheezy is among the old OS'es. It predates my involvement in the 
stable releases effort. I know for sure el6 and 12.04 are supported for 0.94.x. 

> If that is indeed what's happening, and it's not just an oversight, I'd
> prefer to put my efforts into moving to a supported OS rather than keeping
> the older OS on life support.

That makes sense. Should you change your mind, I'll be around to help.

> Just to be clear, I understand it is quite a burden maintaining releases for
> old OSes, I'm only voicing mild surprise and a touch of regret: I'm very
> happy with the Ceph project!

I'm hopefull we'll be able to support more OS in the future, both with a 
lightweight release process and more community support. The Ceph releases 
should scale out, just as Ceph does ;-)

Cheers
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris,
> OnTheNet
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Chris Dunlop]

Hi Loïc,

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:14:27AM +0100, Loic Dachary wrote:
> On 22/03/2016 23:49, Chris Dunlop wrote:
>> Hi Stable Release Team for v0.94,
>> 
>> Let's try again... Any news on a release of v0.94.6 for debian wheezy 
>> (bpo70)?
> 
> I don't think publishing a debian wheezy backport for v0.94.6 is planned. 
> Maybe it's a good opportunity to initiate a community effort ? Would you like 
> to work with me on this ?

It's my understanding, from statements by both Sage and yourself, that
existing OS'es would continue to be supported in the stable series, e.g.:

 On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 06:32:18PM +0700, Loic Dachary wrote:
 > I think you misread what Sage wrote : "The intention was to continue
 > building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old list of supported platforms
 > (which inclues 12.04 and el6)". In other words, the old OS'es are still
 > supported. Their absence is a glitch in the release process that will be
 > fixed.

"The old OS'es" that were being supported up to v0.94.5 includes debian
wheezy. It would be quite surprising and unexpected to drop support for an
OS in the middle of a stable series.

If that is indeed what's happening, and it's not just an oversight, I'd
prefer to put my efforts into moving to a supported OS rather than keeping
the older OS on life support.

Just to be clear, I understand it is quite a burden maintaining releases for
old OSes, I'm only voicing mild surprise and a touch of regret: I'm very
happy with the Ceph project!

Cheers,

Chris,
OnTheNet
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Loic Dachary]

On 22/03/2016 23:49, Chris Dunlop wrote:
> Hi Stable Release Team for v0.94,
> 
> Let's try again... Any news on a release of v0.94.6 for debian wheezy (bpo70)?

I don't think publishing a debian wheezy backport for v0.94.6 is planned. Maybe 
it's a good opportunity to initiate a community effort ? Would you like to work 
with me on this ?

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:43:15PM +1100, Chris Dunlop wrote:
>> Hi Chen,
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:40:28AM +, Chen, Xiaoxi wrote:
>>> It’s already there, in 
>>> http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/pool/main/c/ceph/.
>>
>> I can only see ceph*_0.94.6-1~bpo80+1_amd64.deb there. Debian wheezy would
>> be bpo70.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>> On 3/17/16, 7:20 AM, "Chris Dunlop"  wrote:
>>>
 Hi Stable Release Team for v0.94,

 On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:00:06AM +1100, Chris Dunlop wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 06:32:18PM +0700, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> I think you misread what Sage wrote : "The intention was to
>> continue building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old list of
>> supported platforms (which inclues 12.04 and el6)". In other
>> words, the old OS'es are still supported. Their absence is a
>> glitch in the release process that will be fixed.
>
> Any news on a release of v0.94.6 for debian wheezy?

 Any news on a release of v0.94.6 for debian wheezy?

 Cheers,

 Chris
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Chris Dunlop]

Hi Stable Release Team for v0.94,

Let's try again... Any news on a release of v0.94.6 for debian wheezy (bpo70)?

Cheers,

Chris

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:43:15PM +1100, Chris Dunlop wrote:
> Hi Chen,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:40:28AM +, Chen, Xiaoxi wrote:
>> It’s already there, in 
>> http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/pool/main/c/ceph/.
> 
> I can only see ceph*_0.94.6-1~bpo80+1_amd64.deb there. Debian wheezy would
> be bpo70.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
>> On 3/17/16, 7:20 AM, "Chris Dunlop"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Stable Release Team for v0.94,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:00:06AM +1100, Chris Dunlop wrote:
 On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 06:32:18PM +0700, Loic Dachary wrote:
> I think you misread what Sage wrote : "The intention was to
> continue building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old list of
> supported platforms (which inclues 12.04 and el6)". In other
> words, the old OS'es are still supported. Their absence is a
> glitch in the release process that will be fixed.
 
 Any news on a release of v0.94.6 for debian wheezy?
>>>
>>> Any news on a release of v0.94.6 for debian wheezy?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Chris
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Chris Dunlop]

Hi Stable Release Team for v0.94,

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:00:06AM +1100, Chris Dunlop wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 06:32:18PM +0700, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> I think you misread what Sage wrote : "The intention was to
>> continue building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old list of
>> supported platforms (which inclues 12.04 and el6)". In other
>> words, the old OS'es are still supported. Their absence is a
>> glitch in the release process that will be fixed.
> 
> Any news on a release of v0.94.6 for debian wheezy?

Any news on a release of v0.94.6 for debian wheezy?

Cheers,

Chris
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Chris Dunlop]

Hi Chen,

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:40:28AM +, Chen, Xiaoxi wrote:
> It’s already there, in 
> http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/pool/main/c/ceph/.

I can only see ceph*_0.94.6-1~bpo80+1_amd64.deb there. Debian wheezy would
be bpo70.

Cheers,

Chris

> On 3/17/16, 7:20 AM, "Chris Dunlop"  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Stable Release Team for v0.94,
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:00:06AM +1100, Chris Dunlop wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 06:32:18PM +0700, Loic Dachary wrote:
 I think you misread what Sage wrote : "The intention was to
 continue building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old list of
 supported platforms (which inclues 12.04 and el6)". In other
 words, the old OS'es are still supported. Their absence is a
 glitch in the release process that will be fixed.
>>> 
>>> Any news on a release of v0.94.6 for debian wheezy?
>>
>> Any news on a release of v0.94.6 for debian wheezy?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Chris Dunlop]

Hi Loic,

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 06:32:18PM +0700, Loic Dachary wrote:
> I think you misread what Sage wrote : "The intention was to
> continue building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old list of
> supported platforms (which inclues 12.04 and el6)". In other
> words, the old OS'es are still supported. Their absence is a
> glitch in the release process that will be fixed.

Any news on a release of v0.94.6 for debian wheezy?

Cheers,

Chris
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Loic Dachary]

Hi Dan,

On 02/03/2016 19:48, Dan van der Ster wrote:
> Hi Loic,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/03/2016 17:15, Odintsov Vladislav wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> it looks very strange, that LTS release suddenly stopped support of one of 
>>> OS'es in the middle of lifecycle. Especially when there are no technical 
>>> problems.
>>> How can we help community with building hammer branch officially?
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think you misread what Sage wrote : "The intention was to continue 
>> building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old list of supported platforms 
>> (which inclues 12.04 and el6)". In other words, the old OS'es are still 
>> supported. Their absence is a glitch in the release process that will be 
>> fixed.
>>
> 
> BTW, has there been any discussion to do 0.94.7 on a shorter interval?
> There is at least one unfortunate regression in .6:
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14873

It's an incentive to have 0.94.7, indeed. It could be released this month, 
should Sage decide it's worth it.

Cheers

> 
> Cheers, Dan
> 
> 
>> Cheers
>>
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>>
>>> 
>>> From: ceph-users <ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com> on behalf of Chris 
>>> Dunlop <ch...@onthe.net.au>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 04:06
>>> To: Sage Weil
>>> Cc: Loic Dachary; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-us...@ceph.com
>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The "old list of supported platforms" includes debian wheezy.
>>> Will v0.94.6 be built for this?
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:57:53AM -0500, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>> The intention was to continue building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old
>>>> list of supported platforms (which inclues 12.04 and el6).  I think it was
>>>> just an oversight that they weren't built this time around.  I the
>>>> overhead to doing so is just keeping a 12.04 and el6 jenkins build slave
>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>> Doing this builds in the existing environment sounds much better than
>>>> trying to pull in externally built binaries...
>>>>
>>>> sage
>>> ___
>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>> ___
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Dan van der Ster]

Hi Loic,

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 02/03/2016 17:15, Odintsov Vladislav wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it looks very strange, that LTS release suddenly stopped support of one of 
>> OS'es in the middle of lifecycle. Especially when there are no technical 
>> problems.
>> How can we help community with building hammer branch officially?
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> I think you misread what Sage wrote : "The intention was to continue building 
> stable releases (0.94.x) on the old list of supported platforms (which 
> inclues 12.04 and el6)". In other words, the old OS'es are still supported. 
> Their absence is a glitch in the release process that will be fixed.
>

BTW, has there been any discussion to do 0.94.7 on a shorter interval?
There is at least one unfortunate regression in .6:
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14873

Cheers, Dan


> Cheers
>
>> 
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>
>> 
>> From: ceph-users <ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com> on behalf of Chris 
>> Dunlop <ch...@onthe.net.au>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 04:06
>> To: Sage Weil
>> Cc: Loic Dachary; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-us...@ceph.com
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The "old list of supported platforms" includes debian wheezy.
>> Will v0.94.6 be built for this?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:57:53AM -0500, Sage Weil wrote:
>>> The intention was to continue building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old
>>> list of supported platforms (which inclues 12.04 and el6).  I think it was
>>> just an oversight that they weren't built this time around.  I the
>>> overhead to doing so is just keeping a 12.04 and el6 jenkins build slave
>>> around.
>>>
>>> Doing this builds in the existing environment sounds much better than
>>> trying to pull in externally built binaries...
>>>
>>> sage
>> ___
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>
>
> --
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Loic Dachary]

On 02/03/2016 17:15, Odintsov Vladislav wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> it looks very strange, that LTS release suddenly stopped support of one of 
> OS'es in the middle of lifecycle. Especially when there are no technical 
> problems.
> How can we help community with building hammer branch officially?
> 

Hi,

I think you misread what Sage wrote : "The intention was to continue building 
stable releases (0.94.x) on the old list of supported platforms (which inclues 
12.04 and el6)". In other words, the old OS'es are still supported. Their 
absence is a glitch in the release process that will be fixed.

Cheers

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vladislav Odintsov
> 
> 
> From: ceph-users <ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com> on behalf of Chris 
> Dunlop <ch...@onthe.net.au>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 04:06
> To: Sage Weil
> Cc: Loic Dachary; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-us...@ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The "old list of supported platforms" includes debian wheezy.
> Will v0.94.6 be built for this?
> 
> Chris
> 
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:57:53AM -0500, Sage Weil wrote:
>> The intention was to continue building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old
>> list of supported platforms (which inclues 12.04 and el6).  I think it was
>> just an oversight that they weren't built this time around.  I the
>> overhead to doing so is just keeping a 12.04 and el6 jenkins build slave
>> around.
>>
>> Doing this builds in the existing environment sounds much better than
>> trying to pull in externally built binaries...
>>
>> sage
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Odintsov Vladislav]

Hi,

it looks very strange, that LTS release suddenly stopped support of one of 
OS'es in the middle of lifecycle. Especially when there are no technical 
problems.
How can we help community with building hammer branch officially?


Regards,

Vladislav Odintsov


From: ceph-users <ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com> on behalf of Chris Dunlop 
<ch...@onthe.net.au>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 04:06
To: Sage Weil
Cc: Loic Dachary; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-us...@ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

Hi,

The "old list of supported platforms" includes debian wheezy.
Will v0.94.6 be built for this?

Chris

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:57:53AM -0500, Sage Weil wrote:
> The intention was to continue building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old
> list of supported platforms (which inclues 12.04 and el6).  I think it was
> just an oversight that they weren't built this time around.  I the
> overhead to doing so is just keeping a 12.04 and el6 jenkins build slave
> around.
>
> Doing this builds in the existing environment sounds much better than
> trying to pull in externally built binaries...
>
> sage
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Chris Dunlop]

Hi,

The "old list of supported platforms" includes debian wheezy.
Will v0.94.6 be built for this?

Chris

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:57:53AM -0500, Sage Weil wrote:
> The intention was to continue building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old 
> list of supported platforms (which inclues 12.04 and el6).  I think it was 
> just an oversight that they weren't built this time around.  I the 
> overhead to doing so is just keeping a 12.04 and el6 jenkins build slave 
> around.
> 
> Doing this builds in the existing environment sounds much better than 
> trying to pull in externally built binaries...
> 
> sage
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Dan van der Ster]

If it can help, it's really very little work for me to send the hammer
SRPM to our Koji build system.

I think the real work will come if people starting asking for jewel
builds on el6 and other old platforms. In that case, if a reputable
organisation offers to maintain the builds (+ deps), then IMHO
ceph.com should just link to them. Copying to ceph.com might give a
false sense of security in this case.

-- Dan


On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Loic Dachary  wrote:
> I've created a pad at http://pad.ceph.com/p/development-releases for the next 
> CDM ( see http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/wiki/Planning for details).
>
> On 29/02/2016 22:49, Nathan Cutler wrote:
>> The basic idea is to copy the packages that are build by gitbuilders or by 
>> the buildpackage teuthology task in a central place. Because these packages 
>> are built, for development versions as well as stable versions[2]. And they 
>> are tested via teuthology. The packages that are published on 
>> http://ceph.com/ are rebuilt from scratch, using the process that Alfredo 
>> described. This is fine for the supported platforms and for the stable 
>> releases. But for the development releases and the platforms that are no 
>> longer supported but still built by gibuilders, we could just copy the 
>> packages over.
>
> --
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Loic Dachary]

On 29/02/2016 22:49, Nathan Cutler wrote:
>> The basic idea is to copy the packages that are build by gitbuilders or by 
>> the buildpackage teuthology task in a central place. Because these packages 
>> are built, for development versions as well as stable versions[2]. And they 
>> are tested via teuthology. The packages that are published on 
>> http://ceph.com/ are rebuilt from scratch, using the process that Alfredo 
>> described. This is fine for the supported platforms and for the stable 
>> releases. But for the development releases and the platforms that are no 
>> longer supported but still built by gibuilders, we could just copy the 
>> packages over.
>>
>> Does that sound sensible ?
> 
> Hi Loic:
> 
> Community packages for "deprecated" platforms ("deprecated" in the sense that 
> the Ceph developers are no longer testing on them) would be welcomed by many, 
> I imagine. And the additional workload for the Stable Releases team is not 
> large. The question is, where will the packages be copied *to*?
> 

How does archive.ceph.com sound ?

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Loic Dachary]

I've created a pad at http://pad.ceph.com/p/development-releases for the next 
CDM ( see http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/wiki/Planning for details).

On 29/02/2016 22:49, Nathan Cutler wrote:
> The basic idea is to copy the packages that are build by gitbuilders or by 
> the buildpackage teuthology task in a central place. Because these packages 
> are built, for development versions as well as stable versions[2]. And they 
> are tested via teuthology. The packages that are published on 
> http://ceph.com/ are rebuilt from scratch, using the process that Alfredo 
> described. This is fine for the supported platforms and for the stable 
> releases. But for the development releases and the platforms that are no 
> longer supported but still built by gibuilders, we could just copy the 
> packages over.

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Sage Weil]

The intention was to continue building stable releases (0.94.x) on the old 
list of supported platforms (which inclues 12.04 and el6).  I think it was 
just an oversight that they weren't built this time around.  I the 
overhead to doing so is just keeping a 12.04 and el6 jenkins build slave 
around.

Doing this builds in the existing environment sounds much better than 
trying to pull in externally built binaries...

sage


On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Loic Dachary wrote:

> Hi Dan & al,
> 
> I think it would be relatively simple to have these binaries published as 
> part of the current "Stable release" team effort[1]. Essentially doing what 
> you did and electing a central place to store these binaries. The trick is to 
> find a sustainable way to do this which means having a process that is simple 
> to maintain and understand as well as enough of us to maintain that in the 
> long run.
> 
> The basic idea is to copy the packages that are build by gitbuilders or by 
> the buildpackage teuthology task in a central place. Because these packages 
> are built, for development versions as well as stable versions[2]. And they 
> are tested via teuthology. The packages that are published on 
> http://ceph.com/ are rebuilt from scratch, using the process that Alfredo 
> described. This is fine for the supported platforms and for the stable 
> releases. But for the development releases and the platforms that are no 
> longer supported but still built by gibuilders, we could just copy the 
> packages over.
> 
> Does that sound sensible ?
> 
> [1] http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO
> [2] http://gitbuilder.ceph.com/
> 
> 
> On 29/02/2016 20:28, Dan van der Ster wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Odintsov Vladislav <vlodint...@croc.ru> 
> > wrote:
> >> Can you please provide right way for building rpm packages?
> > 
> > It's documented here:
> > http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/install/build-ceph/#rpm-package-manager
> > 
> > For 0.94.6 you need to change the .spec file to use .tar.gz (because
> > there was no .bz2 published for some reason). And then also grab
> > init-ceph.in-fedora.patch from here:
> > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ceph/ceph/master/rpm/init-ceph.in-fedora.patch
> > 
> > BTW, I've put our build here:
> > http://linuxsoft.cern.ch/internal/repos/ceph6-stable/x86_64/os/
> > These are unsigned, untested and come with no warranty, no guarantees
> > of any sort. And IMHO, no third party build would ever to give that
> > warm fuzzy trust-it-with-my-data feeling like a ceph.com build would
> > ;)
> > 
> > Moving forward, it would be great if the required community effort
> > could be put to work to get ceph.com el6 (and other) builds. For el6
> > in particular there is also the option to help out the Centos Storage
> > SIG to produce builds. I don't have a good feeling which direction is
> > better ... maybe both.
> > 
> > -- Dan
> > CERN IT Storage Group
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Vladislav Odintsov
> >>
> >> 
> >> From: Shinobu Kinjo <ski...@redhat.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 14:11
> >> To: Odintsov Vladislav
> >> Cc: Franklin M. Siler; Xiaoxi Chen; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; 
> >> ceph-users; Sage Weil
> >> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
> >>
> >> Can we make any kind of general procedure to make packages so that almost 
> >> everyone in community build packages by themselves and reduce developers 
> >> work load caused by too much requirement -;
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Shinobu
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >> From: "Odintsov Vladislav" <vlodint...@croc.ru>
> >> To: "Franklin M. Siler" <m...@franksiler.com>, "Xiaoxi Chen" 
> >> <superdebu...@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org, "ceph-users" <ceph-us...@ceph.com>, "Sage 
> >> Weil" <s...@redhat.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:04:02 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> should we build el6 packages ourself or, it's hoped that these packages 
> >> would be built officially by community?
> >>
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Vladislav Odintsov
> >>
> >> __

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Nathan Cutler]

The basic idea is to copy the packages that are build by gitbuilders or by the 
buildpackage teuthology task in a central place. Because these packages are 
built, for development versions as well as stable versions[2]. And they are 
tested via teuthology. The packages that are published on http://ceph.com/ are 
rebuilt from scratch, using the process that Alfredo described. This is fine 
for the supported platforms and for the stable releases. But for the 
development releases and the platforms that are no longer supported but still 
built by gibuilders, we could just copy the packages over.

Does that sound sensible ?


Hi Loic:

Community packages for "deprecated" platforms ("deprecated" in the sense 
that the Ceph developers are no longer testing on them) would be 
welcomed by many, I imagine. And the additional workload for the Stable 
Releases team is not large. The question is, where will the packages be 
copied *to*?


--
Nathan Cutler
Software Engineer Distributed Storage
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
Tel.: +420 284 084 037
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Loic Dachary]

Hi Dan & al,

I think it would be relatively simple to have these binaries published as part 
of the current "Stable release" team effort[1]. Essentially doing what you did 
and electing a central place to store these binaries. The trick is to find a 
sustainable way to do this which means having a process that is simple to 
maintain and understand as well as enough of us to maintain that in the long 
run.

The basic idea is to copy the packages that are build by gitbuilders or by the 
buildpackage teuthology task in a central place. Because these packages are 
built, for development versions as well as stable versions[2]. And they are 
tested via teuthology. The packages that are published on http://ceph.com/ are 
rebuilt from scratch, using the process that Alfredo described. This is fine 
for the supported platforms and for the stable releases. But for the 
development releases and the platforms that are no longer supported but still 
built by gibuilders, we could just copy the packages over.

Does that sound sensible ?

[1] http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO
[2] http://gitbuilder.ceph.com/


On 29/02/2016 20:28, Dan van der Ster wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Odintsov Vladislav <vlodint...@croc.ru> 
> wrote:
>> Can you please provide right way for building rpm packages?
> 
> It's documented here:
> http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/install/build-ceph/#rpm-package-manager
> 
> For 0.94.6 you need to change the .spec file to use .tar.gz (because
> there was no .bz2 published for some reason). And then also grab
> init-ceph.in-fedora.patch from here:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ceph/ceph/master/rpm/init-ceph.in-fedora.patch
> 
> BTW, I've put our build here:
> http://linuxsoft.cern.ch/internal/repos/ceph6-stable/x86_64/os/
> These are unsigned, untested and come with no warranty, no guarantees
> of any sort. And IMHO, no third party build would ever to give that
> warm fuzzy trust-it-with-my-data feeling like a ceph.com build would
> ;)
> 
> Moving forward, it would be great if the required community effort
> could be put to work to get ceph.com el6 (and other) builds. For el6
> in particular there is also the option to help out the Centos Storage
> SIG to produce builds. I don't have a good feeling which direction is
> better ... maybe both.
> 
> -- Dan
> CERN IT Storage Group
> 
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>
>> 
>> From: Shinobu Kinjo <ski...@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 14:11
>> To: Odintsov Vladislav
>> Cc: Franklin M. Siler; Xiaoxi Chen; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-users; 
>> Sage Weil
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>>
>> Can we make any kind of general procedure to make packages so that almost 
>> everyone in community build packages by themselves and reduce developers 
>> work load caused by too much requirement -;
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Shinobu
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Odintsov Vladislav" <vlodint...@croc.ru>
>> To: "Franklin M. Siler" <m...@franksiler.com>, "Xiaoxi Chen" 
>> <superdebu...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org, "ceph-users" <ceph-us...@ceph.com>, "Sage 
>> Weil" <s...@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:04:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> should we build el6 packages ourself or, it's hoped that these packages 
>> would be built officially by community?
>>
>> ____________
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>
>> 
>> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org <ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org> on 
>> behalf of Franklin M. Siler <m...@franksiler.com>
>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 05:03
>> To: Xiaoxi Chen
>> Cc: Alfredo Deza; Dan van der Ster; Sage Weil; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; 
>> ceph-users
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>>
>> On Feb 25, 2016, at 1839, Xiaoxi Chen <superdebu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Will we build package for ubuntu 12.04 (Precise)?
>>> Seems it also doesnt show in the repo
>>
>> The Ceph packages provided by Ubuntu are old.  However, the Ceph project 
>> publishes its own packages.
>>
>> http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/dists/precise/
>>
>> so repo lines for sources.list would be, I think:
>>
>> deb http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/ pre

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Josef Johansson]

Maybe the reverse is possible, where we as a community lend out computing 
resources that the central build system could use.

> On 29 Feb 2016, at 14:38, Josef Johansson <jose...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> There is also https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm/wiki 
> <https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm/wiki>
> 
> I find it quite useful for building deb/rpm.
> 
> What would be useful for the community per se would be if you made a 
> Dockerfile for each type of combination, i.e. Ubuntu trusty / 10.0.3 and so 
> forth.
> 
> That way anyone could just docker run ceph/compile-ubuntu-trusty-10.0.3 and 
> that would be it.
> 
> I don’t think that would even be tough to do.
> 
> I’m unsure how well you can test that it’s not tampered with, but I assume 
> it’s possible to solve, or at least set up trusts between a contributor and 
> the repo. 
> 
> Regards,
> Josef
> 
>> On 29 Feb 2016, at 14:28, Dan van der Ster <d...@vanderster.com 
>> <mailto:d...@vanderster.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Odintsov Vladislav <vlodint...@croc.ru 
>> <mailto:vlodint...@croc.ru>> wrote:
>>> Can you please provide right way for building rpm packages?
>> 
>> It's documented here:
>> http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/install/build-ceph/#rpm-package-manager 
>> <http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/install/build-ceph/#rpm-package-manager>
>> 
>> For 0.94.6 you need to change the .spec file to use .tar.gz (because
>> there was no .bz2 published for some reason). And then also grab
>> init-ceph.in-fedora.patch from here:
>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ceph/ceph/master/rpm/init-ceph.in-fedora.patch
>>  
>> <https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ceph/ceph/master/rpm/init-ceph.in-fedora.patch>
>> 
>> BTW, I've put our build here:
>> http://linuxsoft.cern.ch/internal/repos/ceph6-stable/x86_64/os/ 
>> <http://linuxsoft.cern.ch/internal/repos/ceph6-stable/x86_64/os/>
>> These are unsigned, untested and come with no warranty, no guarantees
>> of any sort. And IMHO, no third party build would ever to give that
>> warm fuzzy trust-it-with-my-data feeling like a ceph.com <http://ceph.com/> 
>> build would
>> ;)
>> 
>> Moving forward, it would be great if the required community effort
>> could be put to work to get ceph.com <http://ceph.com/> el6 (and other) 
>> builds. For el6
>> in particular there is also the option to help out the Centos Storage
>> SIG to produce builds. I don't have a good feeling which direction is
>> better ... maybe both.
>> 
>> -- Dan
>> CERN IT Storage Group
>> 
>> 
>>> ________
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Shinobu Kinjo <ski...@redhat.com <mailto:ski...@redhat.com>>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 14:11
>>> To: Odintsov Vladislav
>>> Cc: Franklin M. Siler; Xiaoxi Chen; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org 
>>> <mailto:ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org>; ceph-users; Sage Weil
>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>>> 
>>> Can we make any kind of general procedure to make packages so that almost 
>>> everyone in community build packages by themselves and reduce developers 
>>> work load caused by too much requirement -;
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Shinobu
>>> 
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Odintsov Vladislav" <vlodint...@croc.ru <mailto:vlodint...@croc.ru>>
>>> To: "Franklin M. Siler" <m...@franksiler.com <mailto:m...@franksiler.com>>, 
>>> "Xiaoxi Chen" <superdebu...@gmail.com <mailto:superdebu...@gmail.com>>
>>> Cc: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org <mailto:ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org>, 
>>> "ceph-users" <ceph-us...@ceph.com <mailto:ceph-us...@ceph.com>>, "Sage 
>>> Weil" <s...@redhat.com <mailto:s...@redhat.com>>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:04:02 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> should we build el6 packages ourself or, it's hoped that these packages 
>>> would be built officially by community?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org 
>&

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Josef Johansson]

Hi,

There is also https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm/wiki 
<https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm/wiki>

I find it quite useful for building deb/rpm.

What would be useful for the community per se would be if you made a Dockerfile 
for each type of combination, i.e. Ubuntu trusty / 10.0.3 and so forth.

That way anyone could just docker run ceph/compile-ubuntu-trusty-10.0.3 and 
that would be it.

I don’t think that would even be tough to do.

I’m unsure how well you can test that it’s not tampered with, but I assume it’s 
possible to solve, or at least set up trusts between a contributor and the 
repo. 

Regards,
Josef

> On 29 Feb 2016, at 14:28, Dan van der Ster <d...@vanderster.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Odintsov Vladislav <vlodint...@croc.ru 
> <mailto:vlodint...@croc.ru>> wrote:
>> Can you please provide right way for building rpm packages?
> 
> It's documented here:
> http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/install/build-ceph/#rpm-package-manager 
> <http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/install/build-ceph/#rpm-package-manager>
> 
> For 0.94.6 you need to change the .spec file to use .tar.gz (because
> there was no .bz2 published for some reason). And then also grab
> init-ceph.in-fedora.patch from here:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ceph/ceph/master/rpm/init-ceph.in-fedora.patch
>  
> <https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ceph/ceph/master/rpm/init-ceph.in-fedora.patch>
> 
> BTW, I've put our build here:
> http://linuxsoft.cern.ch/internal/repos/ceph6-stable/x86_64/os/ 
> <http://linuxsoft.cern.ch/internal/repos/ceph6-stable/x86_64/os/>
> These are unsigned, untested and come with no warranty, no guarantees
> of any sort. And IMHO, no third party build would ever to give that
> warm fuzzy trust-it-with-my-data feeling like a ceph.com <http://ceph.com/> 
> build would
> ;)
> 
> Moving forward, it would be great if the required community effort
> could be put to work to get ceph.com <http://ceph.com/> el6 (and other) 
> builds. For el6
> in particular there is also the option to help out the Centos Storage
> SIG to produce builds. I don't have a good feeling which direction is
> better ... maybe both.
> 
> -- Dan
> CERN IT Storage Group
> 
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Vladislav Odintsov
>> 
>> 
>> From: Shinobu Kinjo <ski...@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 14:11
>> To: Odintsov Vladislav
>> Cc: Franklin M. Siler; Xiaoxi Chen; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-users; 
>> Sage Weil
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>> 
>> Can we make any kind of general procedure to make packages so that almost 
>> everyone in community build packages by themselves and reduce developers 
>> work load caused by too much requirement -;
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Shinobu
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Odintsov Vladislav" <vlodint...@croc.ru>
>> To: "Franklin M. Siler" <m...@franksiler.com>, "Xiaoxi Chen" 
>> <superdebu...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org, "ceph-users" <ceph-us...@ceph.com>, "Sage 
>> Weil" <s...@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:04:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> should we build el6 packages ourself or, it's hoped that these packages 
>> would be built officially by community?
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Vladislav Odintsov
>> 
>> 
>> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org <ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org> on 
>> behalf of Franklin M. Siler <m...@franksiler.com>
>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 05:03
>> To: Xiaoxi Chen
>> Cc: Alfredo Deza; Dan van der Ster; Sage Weil; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; 
>> ceph-users
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>> 
>> On Feb 25, 2016, at 1839, Xiaoxi Chen <superdebu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Will we build package for ubuntu 12.04 (Precise)?
>>> Seems it also doesnt show in the repo
>> 
>> The Ceph packages provided by Ubuntu are old.  However, the Ceph project 
>> publishes its own packages.
>> 
>> http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/dists/precise/
>> 
>> so repo lines for sources.list would be, I think:
>> 
>> deb http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/ precise main
>> deb-src http://download.ce

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Dan van der Ster]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Odintsov Vladislav <vlodint...@croc.ru> wrote:
> Can you please provide right way for building rpm packages?

It's documented here:
http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/install/build-ceph/#rpm-package-manager

For 0.94.6 you need to change the .spec file to use .tar.gz (because
there was no .bz2 published for some reason). And then also grab
init-ceph.in-fedora.patch from here:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ceph/ceph/master/rpm/init-ceph.in-fedora.patch

BTW, I've put our build here:
http://linuxsoft.cern.ch/internal/repos/ceph6-stable/x86_64/os/
These are unsigned, untested and come with no warranty, no guarantees
of any sort. And IMHO, no third party build would ever to give that
warm fuzzy trust-it-with-my-data feeling like a ceph.com build would
;)

Moving forward, it would be great if the required community effort
could be put to work to get ceph.com el6 (and other) builds. For el6
in particular there is also the option to help out the Centos Storage
SIG to produce builds. I don't have a good feeling which direction is
better ... maybe both.

-- Dan
CERN IT Storage Group


> 
> Regards,
>
> Vladislav Odintsov
>
> 
> From: Shinobu Kinjo <ski...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 14:11
> To: Odintsov Vladislav
> Cc: Franklin M. Siler; Xiaoxi Chen; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-users; 
> Sage Weil
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>
> Can we make any kind of general procedure to make packages so that almost 
> everyone in community build packages by themselves and reduce developers work 
> load caused by too much requirement -;
>
> Cheers,
> Shinobu
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Odintsov Vladislav" <vlodint...@croc.ru>
> To: "Franklin M. Siler" <m...@franksiler.com>, "Xiaoxi Chen" 
> <superdebu...@gmail.com>
> Cc: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org, "ceph-users" <ceph-us...@ceph.com>, "Sage 
> Weil" <s...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:04:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>
> Hi all,
>
> should we build el6 packages ourself or, it's hoped that these packages would 
> be built officially by community?
>
> 
> Regards,
>
> Vladislav Odintsov
>
> 
> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org <ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org> on 
> behalf of Franklin M. Siler <m...@franksiler.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 05:03
> To: Xiaoxi Chen
> Cc: Alfredo Deza; Dan van der Ster; Sage Weil; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; 
> ceph-users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>
> On Feb 25, 2016, at 1839, Xiaoxi Chen <superdebu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Will we build package for ubuntu 12.04 (Precise)?
>> Seems it also doesnt show in the repo
>
> The Ceph packages provided by Ubuntu are old.  However, the Ceph project 
> publishes its own packages.
>
> http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/dists/precise/
>
> so repo lines for sources.list would be, I think:
>
> deb http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/ precise main
> deb-src http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/ precise main
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Frank Siler
> Siler Industrial Analytics
> 314.799.9405--
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Alfredo Deza]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Odintsov Vladislav <vlodint...@croc.ru> wrote:
> Can you please provide right way for building rpm packages?

Building binaries is tricky. CI has a few steps to be able to get
binaries at the end of the process. The actual RPM building is mainly
this portion: 
https://github.com/ceph/ceph-build/blob/master/ceph-build/build/build_rpm#L87-L110

But before doing that you need to install dependencies and run
autogen.sh and configure, etc... as this script does:

https://github.com/ceph/ceph-build/blob/master/ceph-setup/build/build
>
> 
> Regards,
>
> Vladislav Odintsov
>
> 
> From: Shinobu Kinjo <ski...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 14:11
> To: Odintsov Vladislav
> Cc: Franklin M. Siler; Xiaoxi Chen; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-users; 
> Sage Weil
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>
> Can we make any kind of general procedure to make packages so that almost 
> everyone in community build packages by themselves and reduce developers work 
> load caused by too much requirement -;

This is also very tricky to do. All I can offer is to point you (and
others) to the tools that we have and use to create binaries in hopes
that they
can be generalized a bit. For building Ceph we have 3 main steps:

tagging: done with ansible ->
https://github.com/ceph/ceph-build/blob/master/ansible/roles/ceph-release/tasks/main.yml
setup: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-build/blob/master/ceph-setup/build/build
building: depending on the binary type to build, broken up into a few
scripts: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-build/tree/master/ceph-build/build

Once these are built, they are pushed to an HTTP binary API where they
can be consumed later https://chacra.ceph.com/

If a community/generalized effort would be in place I would think a
separate instance of this API should exist so that binary-building
chores
could be split (e.g. by release/distro) and be pushed independently to
this community-owned service.

The service is configured to create the repositories when a new binary
is POSTed so once new ones exist, consuming the repos is trivial.

Everything related to the service is very well documented here:
https://github.com/ceph/chacra#chacra

The most important thing on that service would be the need for space
as repos can get quite large. I wouldn't mind helping out setting up
an instance.

>
> Cheers,
> Shinobu
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Odintsov Vladislav" <vlodint...@croc.ru>
> To: "Franklin M. Siler" <m...@franksiler.com>, "Xiaoxi Chen" 
> <superdebu...@gmail.com>
> Cc: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org, "ceph-users" <ceph-us...@ceph.com>, "Sage 
> Weil" <s...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:04:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>
> Hi all,
>
> should we build el6 packages ourself or, it's hoped that these packages would 
> be built officially by community?
>
> 
> Regards,
>
> Vladislav Odintsov
>
> 
> From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org <ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org> on 
> behalf of Franklin M. Siler <m...@franksiler.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 05:03
> To: Xiaoxi Chen
> Cc: Alfredo Deza; Dan van der Ster; Sage Weil; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; 
> ceph-users
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released
>
> On Feb 25, 2016, at 1839, Xiaoxi Chen <superdebu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Will we build package for ubuntu 12.04 (Precise)?
>> Seems it also doesnt show in the repo
>
> The Ceph packages provided by Ubuntu are old.  However, the Ceph project 
> publishes its own packages.
>
> http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/dists/precise/
>
> so repo lines for sources.list would be, I think:
>
> deb http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/ precise main
> deb-src http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/ precise main
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Frank Siler
> Siler Industrial Analytics
> 314.799.9405--
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Odintsov Vladislav]

Can you please provide right way for building rpm packages?


Regards,

Vladislav Odintsov


From: Shinobu Kinjo <ski...@redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 14:11
To: Odintsov Vladislav
Cc: Franklin M. Siler; Xiaoxi Chen; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; ceph-users; 
Sage Weil
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

Can we make any kind of general procedure to make packages so that almost 
everyone in community build packages by themselves and reduce developers work 
load caused by too much requirement -;

Cheers,
Shinobu

- Original Message -
From: "Odintsov Vladislav" <vlodint...@croc.ru>
To: "Franklin M. Siler" <m...@franksiler.com>, "Xiaoxi Chen" 
<superdebu...@gmail.com>
Cc: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org, "ceph-users" <ceph-us...@ceph.com>, "Sage Weil" 
<s...@redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:04:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

Hi all,

should we build el6 packages ourself or, it's hoped that these packages would 
be built officially by community?


Regards,

Vladislav Odintsov


From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org <ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org> on 
behalf of Franklin M. Siler <m...@franksiler.com>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 05:03
To: Xiaoxi Chen
Cc: Alfredo Deza; Dan van der Ster; Sage Weil; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; 
ceph-users
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

On Feb 25, 2016, at 1839, Xiaoxi Chen <superdebu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Will we build package for ubuntu 12.04 (Precise)?
> Seems it also doesnt show in the repo

The Ceph packages provided by Ubuntu are old.  However, the Ceph project 
publishes its own packages.

http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/dists/precise/

so repo lines for sources.list would be, I think:

deb http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/ precise main
deb-src http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/ precise main


Cheers,

Frank Siler
Siler Industrial Analytics
314.799.9405--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Shinobu Kinjo]

Can we make any kind of general procedure to make packages so that almost 
everyone in community build packages by themselves and reduce developers work 
load caused by too much requirement -;

Cheers,
Shinobu

- Original Message -
From: "Odintsov Vladislav" <vlodint...@croc.ru>
To: "Franklin M. Siler" <m...@franksiler.com>, "Xiaoxi Chen" 
<superdebu...@gmail.com>
Cc: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org, "ceph-users" <ceph-us...@ceph.com>, "Sage Weil" 
<s...@redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:04:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

Hi all,

should we build el6 packages ourself or, it's hoped that these packages would 
be built officially by community?


Regards,

Vladislav Odintsov


From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org <ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org> on 
behalf of Franklin M. Siler <m...@franksiler.com>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 05:03
To: Xiaoxi Chen
Cc: Alfredo Deza; Dan van der Ster; Sage Weil; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; 
ceph-users
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

On Feb 25, 2016, at 1839, Xiaoxi Chen <superdebu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Will we build package for ubuntu 12.04 (Precise)?
> Seems it also doesnt show in the repo

The Ceph packages provided by Ubuntu are old.  However, the Ceph project 
publishes its own packages.

http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/dists/precise/

so repo lines for sources.list would be, I think:

deb http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/ precise main
deb-src http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/ precise main


Cheers,

Frank Siler
Siler Industrial Analytics
314.799.9405--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Odintsov Vladislav]

Hi all,

should we build el6 packages ourself or, it's hoped that these packages would 
be built officially by community?


Regards,

Vladislav Odintsov


From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org <ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org> on 
behalf of Franklin M. Siler <m...@franksiler.com>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 05:03
To: Xiaoxi Chen
Cc: Alfredo Deza; Dan van der Ster; Sage Weil; ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org; 
ceph-users
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

On Feb 25, 2016, at 1839, Xiaoxi Chen <superdebu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Will we build package for ubuntu 12.04 (Precise)?
> Seems it also doesnt show in the repo

The Ceph packages provided by Ubuntu are old.  However, the Ceph project 
publishes its own packages.

http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/dists/precise/

so repo lines for sources.list would be, I think:

deb http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/ precise main
deb-src http://download.ceph.com/debian-hammer/ precise main


Cheers,

Frank Siler
Siler Industrial Analytics
314.799.9405--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Odintsov Vladislav]

Hi,

am I right, that official 0.94.5 el6 was built here?
http://gitbuilder.sepia.ceph.com/gitbuilder-ceph-rpm-centos6-5-amd64-basic/log.cgi?log=9764da52395923e0b32908d83a9f7304401fee43

If yes, it seems like hammer autobuild was broken more than one month ago (11th 
of Jan there is a first failed build):
http://gitbuilder.sepia.ceph.com/gitbuilder-ceph-rpm-centos6-5-amd64-basic/#origin/hammer

Error "sudo: no tty present and no askpass program specified".
Maybe there were changes in Jenkins?
How is the build called? From Jenkins via ssh? Maybe, it should be called ssh 
-t?


Regards,

Vladislav Odintsov



From: ceph-users <ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com> on behalf of Alfredo Deza 
<ad...@redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 22:59
To: Udo Lembke
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Udo Lembke <ulem...@polarzone.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 24.02.2016 um 17:27 schrieb Alfredo Deza:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Dan van der Ster <d...@vanderster.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks Sage, looking forward to some scrub randomization.
>>>
>>> Were binaries built for el6? http://download.ceph.com/rpm-hammer/el6/x86_64/
>>
>> We are no longer building binaries for el6. Just for Centos 7, Ubuntu
>> Trusty, and Debian Jessie.
>>
> this means that our proxmox-ve server 3.4, which run debian wheezy, could not 
> be updated from ceph 0.94.5 to 0.94.6!
> The OSD-nodes run's wheezy too - they can be upgraded. But the MONs must be 
> also upgraded (first).
>
> I can understand, that newer versions will not supplied to an older OS, but 
> stop from minor.5 to minor.6 makes realy no
> sense to me.
>
> Of course, I can update to proxmox-ve 4.x, which is jessie based, but in this 
> case I have trouble with DRBD...

It would be really nice if the community could step up to help us out
in building binaries. Building Ceph is non-trivial and coming
up with all the different distros, distro versions, and architectures
(at some point we were close to 12 variations) is a tremendous
effort.

>
>
> Udo
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Alfredo Deza]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Udo Lembke  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 24.02.2016 um 17:27 schrieb Alfredo Deza:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Dan van der Ster  
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks Sage, looking forward to some scrub randomization.
>>>
>>> Were binaries built for el6? http://download.ceph.com/rpm-hammer/el6/x86_64/
>>
>> We are no longer building binaries for el6. Just for Centos 7, Ubuntu
>> Trusty, and Debian Jessie.
>>
> this means that our proxmox-ve server 3.4, which run debian wheezy, could not 
> be updated from ceph 0.94.5 to 0.94.6!
> The OSD-nodes run's wheezy too - they can be upgraded. But the MONs must be 
> also upgraded (first).
>
> I can understand, that newer versions will not supplied to an older OS, but 
> stop from minor.5 to minor.6 makes realy no
> sense to me.
>
> Of course, I can update to proxmox-ve 4.x, which is jessie based, but in this 
> case I have trouble with DRBD...

It would be really nice if the community could step up to help us out
in building binaries. Building Ceph is non-trivial and coming
up with all the different distros, distro versions, and architectures
(at some point we were close to 12 variations) is a tremendous
effort.

>
>
> Udo
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Udo Lembke]

Hi,

Am 24.02.2016 um 17:27 schrieb Alfredo Deza:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Dan van der Ster  wrote:
>> Thanks Sage, looking forward to some scrub randomization.
>>
>> Were binaries built for el6? http://download.ceph.com/rpm-hammer/el6/x86_64/
> 
> We are no longer building binaries for el6. Just for Centos 7, Ubuntu
> Trusty, and Debian Jessie.
> 
this means that our proxmox-ve server 3.4, which run debian wheezy, could not 
be updated from ceph 0.94.5 to 0.94.6!
The OSD-nodes run's wheezy too - they can be upgraded. But the MONs must be 
also upgraded (first).

I can understand, that newer versions will not supplied to an older OS, but 
stop from minor.5 to minor.6 makes realy no
sense to me.

Of course, I can update to proxmox-ve 4.x, which is jessie based, but in this 
case I have trouble with DRBD...


Udo
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Alfredo Deza]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Dan van der Ster  wrote:
> Thanks Sage, looking forward to some scrub randomization.
>
> Were binaries built for el6? http://download.ceph.com/rpm-hammer/el6/x86_64/

We are no longer building binaries for el6. Just for Centos 7, Ubuntu
Trusty, and Debian Jessie.

>
> Cheers, Dan
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Sage Weil  wrote:
>> This Hammer point release fixes a range of bugs, most notably a fix for
>> unbounded growth of the monitor’s leveldb store, and a workaround in the
>> OSD to keep most xattrs small enough to be stored inline in XFS inodes.
>>
>> We recommend that all hammer v0.94.x users upgrade.
>>
>> For more detailed information, see the complete changelog:
>>
>>   http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/_downloads/v0.94.6.txt
>>
>> Notable Changes
>> ---
>>
>> * build/ops: Ceph daemon failed to start, because the service name was 
>> already used. (#13474, Chuanhong Wang)
>> * build/ops: LTTng-UST tracing should be dynamically enabled (#13274, Jason 
>> Dillaman)
>> * build/ops: ceph upstart script rbdmap.conf incorrectly processes 
>> parameters (#13214, Sage Weil)
>> * build/ops: ceph.spec.in License line does not reflect COPYING (#12935, 
>> Nathan Cutler)
>> * build/ops: ceph.spec.in libcephfs_jni1 has no %post and %postun  (#12927, 
>> Owen Synge)
>> * build/ops: configure.ac: no use to add "+" before ac_ext=c (#14330, Kefu 
>> Chai, Robin H. Johnson)
>> * build/ops: deb: strip tracepoint libraries from Wheezy/Precise builds 
>> (#14801, Jason Dillaman)
>> * build/ops: init script reload doesn't work on EL7 (#13709, Hervé Rousseau)
>> * build/ops: init-rbdmap uses distro-specific functions (#12415, Boris Ranto)
>> * build/ops: logrotate reload error on Ubuntu 14.04 (#11330, Sage Weil)
>> * build/ops: miscellaneous spec file fixes (#12931, #12994, #12924, #12360, 
>> Boris Ranto, Nathan Cutler, Owen Synge, Travis Rhoden, Ken Dreyer)
>> * build/ops: pass tcmalloc env through to ceph-os (#14802, Sage Weil)
>> * build/ops: rbd-replay-* moved from ceph-test-dbg to ceph-common-dbg as 
>> well (#13785, Loic Dachary)
>> * build/ops: unknown argument --quiet in udevadm settle (#13560, Jason 
>> Dillaman)
>> * common: Objecter: pool op callback may hang forever. (#13642, xie xingguo)
>> * common: Objecter: potential null pointer access when do pool_snap_list. 
>> (#13639, xie xingguo)
>> * common: ThreadPool add/remove work queue methods not thread safe (#12662, 
>> Jason Dillaman)
>> * common: auth/cephx: large amounts of log are produced by osd (#13610, 
>> Qiankun Zheng)
>> * common: client nonce collision due to unshared pid namespaces (#13032, 
>> Josh Durgin)
>> * common: common/Thread:pthread_attr_destroy(thread_attr) when done with it 
>> (#12570, Piotr Dałek)
>> * common: log: Log.cc: Assign LOG_DEBUG priority to syslog calls (#13993, 
>> Brad Hubbard)
>> * common: objecter: cancellation bugs (#13071, Jianpeng Ma)
>> * common: pure virtual method called (#13636, Jason Dillaman)
>> * common: small probability sigabrt when setting rados_osd_op_timeout 
>> (#13208, Ruifeng Yang)
>> * common: wrong conditional for boolean function KeyServer::get_auth() 
>> (#9756, #13424, Nathan Cutler)
>> * crush: crash if we see CRUSH_ITEM_NONE in early rule step (#13477, Sage 
>> Weil)
>> * doc: man: document listwatchers cmd in "rados" manpage (#14556, Kefu Chai)
>> * doc: regenerate man pages, add orphans commands to radosgw-admin(8) 
>> (#14637, Ken Dreyer)
>> * fs: CephFS restriction on removing cache tiers is overly strict (#11504, 
>> John Spray)
>> * fs: fsstress.sh fails (#12710, Yan, Zheng)
>> * librados: LibRadosWatchNotify.WatchNotify2Timeout (#13114, Sage Weil)
>> * librbd: ImageWatcher shouldn't block the notification thread (#14373, 
>> Jason Dillaman)
>> * librbd: diff_iterate needs to handle holes in parent images (#12885, Jason 
>> Dillaman)
>> * librbd: fix merge-diff for >2GB diff-files (#14030, Jason Dillaman)
>> * librbd: invalidate object map on error even w/o holding lock (#13372, 
>> Jason Dillaman)
>> * librbd: reads larger than cache size hang (#13164, Lu Shi)
>> * mds: ceph mds add_data_pool check for EC pool is wrong (#12426, John Spray)
>> * mon: MonitorDBStore: get_next_key() only if prefix matches (#11786, Joao 
>> Eduardo Luis)
>> * mon: OSDMonitor: do not assume a session exists in send_incremental() 
>> (#14236, Joao Eduardo Luis)
>> * mon: check for store writeablility before participating in election 
>> (#13089, Sage Weil)
>> * mon: compact full epochs also (#14537, Kefu Chai)
>> * mon: include min_last_epoch_clean as part of PGMap::print_summary and 
>> PGMap::dump (#13198, Guang Yang)
>> * mon: map_cache can become inaccurate if osd does not receive the osdmaps 
>> (#10930, Kefu Chai)
>> * mon: should not set isvalid = true when cephx_verify_authorizer return 
>> false (#13525, Ruifeng Yang)
>> * osd: Ceph Pools' MAX AVAIL is 0 if some OSDs' weight is 0 (#13840, 
>> Chengyuan Li)
>> * 

Re: [ceph-users] v0.94.6 Hammer released

[Dan van der Ster]

Thanks Sage, looking forward to some scrub randomization.

Were binaries built for el6? http://download.ceph.com/rpm-hammer/el6/x86_64/

Cheers, Dan


On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Sage Weil  wrote:
> This Hammer point release fixes a range of bugs, most notably a fix for
> unbounded growth of the monitor’s leveldb store, and a workaround in the
> OSD to keep most xattrs small enough to be stored inline in XFS inodes.
>
> We recommend that all hammer v0.94.x users upgrade.
>
> For more detailed information, see the complete changelog:
>
>   http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/_downloads/v0.94.6.txt
>
> Notable Changes
> ---
>
> * build/ops: Ceph daemon failed to start, because the service name was 
> already used. (#13474, Chuanhong Wang)
> * build/ops: LTTng-UST tracing should be dynamically enabled (#13274, Jason 
> Dillaman)
> * build/ops: ceph upstart script rbdmap.conf incorrectly processes parameters 
> (#13214, Sage Weil)
> * build/ops: ceph.spec.in License line does not reflect COPYING (#12935, 
> Nathan Cutler)
> * build/ops: ceph.spec.in libcephfs_jni1 has no %post and %postun  (#12927, 
> Owen Synge)
> * build/ops: configure.ac: no use to add "+" before ac_ext=c (#14330, Kefu 
> Chai, Robin H. Johnson)
> * build/ops: deb: strip tracepoint libraries from Wheezy/Precise builds 
> (#14801, Jason Dillaman)
> * build/ops: init script reload doesn't work on EL7 (#13709, Hervé Rousseau)
> * build/ops: init-rbdmap uses distro-specific functions (#12415, Boris Ranto)
> * build/ops: logrotate reload error on Ubuntu 14.04 (#11330, Sage Weil)
> * build/ops: miscellaneous spec file fixes (#12931, #12994, #12924, #12360, 
> Boris Ranto, Nathan Cutler, Owen Synge, Travis Rhoden, Ken Dreyer)
> * build/ops: pass tcmalloc env through to ceph-os (#14802, Sage Weil)
> * build/ops: rbd-replay-* moved from ceph-test-dbg to ceph-common-dbg as well 
> (#13785, Loic Dachary)
> * build/ops: unknown argument --quiet in udevadm settle (#13560, Jason 
> Dillaman)
> * common: Objecter: pool op callback may hang forever. (#13642, xie xingguo)
> * common: Objecter: potential null pointer access when do pool_snap_list. 
> (#13639, xie xingguo)
> * common: ThreadPool add/remove work queue methods not thread safe (#12662, 
> Jason Dillaman)
> * common: auth/cephx: large amounts of log are produced by osd (#13610, 
> Qiankun Zheng)
> * common: client nonce collision due to unshared pid namespaces (#13032, Josh 
> Durgin)
> * common: common/Thread:pthread_attr_destroy(thread_attr) when done with it 
> (#12570, Piotr Dałek)
> * common: log: Log.cc: Assign LOG_DEBUG priority to syslog calls (#13993, 
> Brad Hubbard)
> * common: objecter: cancellation bugs (#13071, Jianpeng Ma)
> * common: pure virtual method called (#13636, Jason Dillaman)
> * common: small probability sigabrt when setting rados_osd_op_timeout 
> (#13208, Ruifeng Yang)
> * common: wrong conditional for boolean function KeyServer::get_auth() 
> (#9756, #13424, Nathan Cutler)
> * crush: crash if we see CRUSH_ITEM_NONE in early rule step (#13477, Sage 
> Weil)
> * doc: man: document listwatchers cmd in "rados" manpage (#14556, Kefu Chai)
> * doc: regenerate man pages, add orphans commands to radosgw-admin(8) 
> (#14637, Ken Dreyer)
> * fs: CephFS restriction on removing cache tiers is overly strict (#11504, 
> John Spray)
> * fs: fsstress.sh fails (#12710, Yan, Zheng)
> * librados: LibRadosWatchNotify.WatchNotify2Timeout (#13114, Sage Weil)
> * librbd: ImageWatcher shouldn't block the notification thread (#14373, Jason 
> Dillaman)
> * librbd: diff_iterate needs to handle holes in parent images (#12885, Jason 
> Dillaman)
> * librbd: fix merge-diff for >2GB diff-files (#14030, Jason Dillaman)
> * librbd: invalidate object map on error even w/o holding lock (#13372, Jason 
> Dillaman)
> * librbd: reads larger than cache size hang (#13164, Lu Shi)
> * mds: ceph mds add_data_pool check for EC pool is wrong (#12426, John Spray)
> * mon: MonitorDBStore: get_next_key() only if prefix matches (#11786, Joao 
> Eduardo Luis)
> * mon: OSDMonitor: do not assume a session exists in send_incremental() 
> (#14236, Joao Eduardo Luis)
> * mon: check for store writeablility before participating in election 
> (#13089, Sage Weil)
> * mon: compact full epochs also (#14537, Kefu Chai)
> * mon: include min_last_epoch_clean as part of PGMap::print_summary and 
> PGMap::dump (#13198, Guang Yang)
> * mon: map_cache can become inaccurate if osd does not receive the osdmaps 
> (#10930, Kefu Chai)
> * mon: should not set isvalid = true when cephx_verify_authorizer return 
> false (#13525, Ruifeng Yang)
> * osd: Ceph Pools' MAX AVAIL is 0 if some OSDs' weight is 0 (#13840, 
> Chengyuan Li)
> * osd: FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported (#12512, Kefu Chai)
> * osd: FileStore: potential memory leak if getattrs fails. (#13597, xie 
> xingguo)
> * osd: IO error on kvm/rbd with an erasure coded pool tier (#12012, Kefu Chai)
> * osd: